[_ Old Earth _] sythentic life and the attempt by science to prove toe

[Bronzesnake]

There isn't a nice way of saying this: anyone making this claim is either appallingly ignorant or an outright liar.

Why do some evolutionists constantly revert to childish name calling?
Anytime you disagree with a position you morph into a school boy mentality and start calling people liars.
Unbelievable.

In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count - trillions if you include microfossils.

“intermediate features†being the key revealing remark.
Desperate evolutionists clinging tenaciously to Darwin’s rotting corpse are forced to use these “similarities†in lou of real series of graduated transitional fossils which do not exist as Gould, Eldridge and other evolution heavy weights have admitted, and try to present these examples as though they were examples of series of graduated transitional fossils.

All you people can ever do it paste your illustrations and present hypothesis as though it were reality.
The example you provided of the hypothesised tetrapod/fish evolution is exclusively based on assumption. Don’t you know this? This is exactly what evolutionists do – they show some nice drawings of individual life forms and place them side by side, or in this case atop of one another, and the great hope is that no one will question why there the evolutionists haven’t used photos of these animals, and why there are no photos showing a graduated transition between each of those individual life forms into the next on the list.

I don’t know; perhaps you actually believe these illustrations show a real series of transitional animals Evo...do you?
You are aware that each of those animals actually represents a distinct life form right? You do understand that what is missing from that nice drawing is the in-between transitional series from each of those animals drawings to the other right? Please tell us you didn’t believe these drawings of distinct animals actually represented a series of graduated transitionals.

These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians,

Where can we view the actual series of transitional fossils please?
Or are we simply to take your word for it?

for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik

Here we go yet again. A new fossil is discovered and immediately before any real investigation is done evolutionists everywhere are proclaiming it to be the great missing link!
Take a look at the hyperbole...
http://www.icr.org/article/tiktaalik-our-ancestor/
The New York Times (NYT) reports that the recent discovery of a large scaly creature in Canada is “a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans†(Wilford 2006). National Geographic News (NGN) crows that “fossil hunters may have discovered the fish that made humans possible.â€

But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is incomplete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. Paleontologist Neil Shubin states, “We’ve really only begun to sort of crack that spot [the small rocky outcropping 600 miles from the North Pole where Tiktaalik was found]†(AP 2006).

Also noteworthy, is the use of diffident language by the secular reporters and scientists when discussing Tiktaalik. For example, NGN says this creature “may†be a missing link. While the NYT states that changes in this creature “anticipate†the emergence of land animals. One may anticipate leaving the house, but he is still in the house.

One should note that the bones in Tiktaalik’s fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers.

Here's the great missing link!

Would you gamble your eternal destination on such "evidence"?

to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals.

Please show us proof Evo.

You can’t because it’s all inferred.
If evolution is true the earth should be crammed full of series of graduated transitionals Evo, and yet they are not here. All you can offer is inferred “proof†and nice illustrations. Hey prove me to be wrong, just give us some real photos dude.

What you don't seem to understand is that those drawings aren't "guesses" They are based off of fossil findings.

OK, I’ll take your word for it. Now please direct me to the real fossil photos.

A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another. It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another. They don't even have to be fossils: many living lineages have transitional features.

So the parameters are changing again huh?
Pretty so you’ll be telling us that transitional forms don’t have to be transitionals at all, they just have to be composed of bones. Hey wait a minute! You have - Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium says long periods of stasis and sudden bursts of new life forms which happen so quick there is no fossil evidence!
This makes it extreemly easy to defenc evolution. Because you don't need any real proof according to Gould. That's science?!

Perhaps the most complete set of transitional fossils is the so-called "fishibian" (you know, the first picture i posted) sequence showing the steps by which fish crawled out of the water and onto the land during the Devonian period (see Illustration). The first of these to be discovered was Ichthyostega, in 1932, though it was not properly described until 1996. Its limbs and skull were amphibian-like, but it had a fish-like tail and gill coverings, as well as a classic fish characteristic: a lateral-line sensory system for detecting currents in water. Since then an incredible array of fishibians has been found spanning the entire transition, from the distinctly fish-like Eusthenopteron to the four-legged amphibian Hynerpeton.

“Illustrations†again huh? Show the real fossil photos if they exists Evo.
And what you’ve done here is present “evidence†via homology because these illustrations don’t even show any of the critical in between transitions.

I could do the same thing, only I'll use actual photos, so my evidence will be even more ligitimate...
I will prove the evolution of the bowling ball from small nuts...

This is exactly what you have done.
I've shown images, using real photograph nit illustrations, and shown the transitional similarities from acors all the way upto bowling balls.
I did not show any in between series of graduated transitions from the acorn to the chestnut, and from the chesnut to the walnut, or from the walnut to the coconut, or the coconut to the bowling ball, but hey as you have stated...

A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another. It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another. They don't even have to be fossils: many living lineages have transitional features.

There would be no need to show any in between transition series because they all share similarities so this is proof that this is an excellent prominent source of physical evidence within all science.

a viable means for what? the proof of evolution? It's not needed.

I agree, faith is good enough.

Evolution is one of the most prominent source of physical evidence within all of science. It is unimaginable how someone could not only not understand it, but not see it.

So ironic!

John

 

[Evointrinsic]

There are no transitional fossils

There isn't a nice way of saying this: anyone making this claim is either appallingly ignorant or an outright liar.

Why do some evolutionists constantly revert to childish name calling?
Anytime you disagree with a position you morph into a school boy mentality and start calling people liars.
Unbelievable.

No Bronze, you simply do not understand. Calling someone Ignorant isn't "name calling", it's saying that that person doesn't possess knowledge of whatever the subject it's addressing. For example:

I am rather terrible at math, I am Ignorant to many concepts of math. If I were to make a claim that I knew was wrong, I am a liar. If I make a claim i think is correct, and it's wrong, I am ignorant.

This is the same concept that is being brought up with people who say that there are "No transitional fossils". They are either ignorant or lying. Remember, Evolution describes a natural phenomenon. Darwin's theory didn't make up "Transitional Fossils" it's an attempt to explain it. Just as Isaac didn't make up "gravity" his theory is an attempt to explain it.

In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count - trillions if you include microfossils.

“intermediate features†being the key revealing remark.
Desperate evolutionists clinging tenaciously to Darwin’s rotting corpse are forced to use these “similarities†in lou of real series of graduated transitional fossils which do not exist as Gould, Eldridge and other evolution heavy weights have admitted, and try to present these examples as though they were examples of series of graduated transitional fossils.

"Appallingly ignorant" being the key revealing remark in the previous quote. You simply do not understand what evolution or transitional fossils or intermediate features actually mean.

All you people can ever do it paste your illustrations and present hypothesis as though it were reality.

Ah yes, you mean the illustrations that are drawings of real fossils? those ones? I don't see how if I give you a drawing of a water bottle, or a picture of that same water bottle that was drawn, it will exclude the drawing of one as evidence that the water bottle has a bottle cap on it or not.

The example you provided of the hypothesised tetrapod/fish evolution is exclusively based on assumption. Don’t you know this? This is exactly what evolutionists do – they show some nice drawings of individual life forms and place them side by side, or in this case atop of one another, and the great hope is that no one will question why there the evolutionists haven’t used photos of these animals, and why there are no photos showing a graduated transition between each of those individual life forms into the next on the list.

You make a lot of claims about evolutionary biologists (or in this case paleontologists) Bronze, but you rarely seem to actually discuss the evidence I've given. why is this?

I don’t know; perhaps you actually believe these illustrations show a real series of transitional animals Evo...do you?
You are aware that each of those animals actually represents a distinct life form right? You do understand that what is missing from that nice drawing is the in-between transitional series from each of those animals drawings to the other right? Please tell us you didn’t believe these drawings of distinct animals actually represented a series of graduated transitionals.

You, yet again, have misunderstood what transitional fossils actually mean. I've already spelled it out for you at least 10 times since i've been on this forum, and I know for a fact that other people have as well. Tell me, what do you thing transitional fossil means? How many would we need for us to connect one species to another? or even one relative, as in great grandfather to his modern great grandson/daughter? Tell me. I am curious, because you have shown that you have no idea what your talking about, unless what you are talking about is something completely different from what is original described.

These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians,

Where can we view the actual series of transitional fossils please?
Or are we simply to take your word for it?

Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the other quote. you know, the one that says...

A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another. It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another. They don't even have to be fossils: many living lineages have transitional features.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html[/size]

As you can see, no evolutionary biologist, or microbiologist, or paleontologist is claiming that we have evidence that shows every single family member from the modern species to 150 million years ago in the fossil record. it simply isn't needed to accurately conclude the evidence that You are a relative of the same species of modern humans that existed six thousand years ago.

We can tell that by your physical features and DNA that you are indeed still human.

for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik

Here we go yet again. A new fossil is discovered and immediately before any real investigation is done evolutionists everywhere are proclaiming it to be the great missing link!

Where exactly is your evidence that shows no investigation was made and no tests were done before the conclusion what of the specific fossil discovered? please, tell me.

Take a look at the hyperbole...
http://www.icr.org/article/tiktaalik-our-ancestor/
The New York Times (NYT) reports that the recent discovery of a large scaly creature in Canada is “a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans†(Wilford 2006). National Geographic News (NGN) crows that “fossil hunters may have discovered the fish that made humans possible.â€

But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is incomplete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. Paleontologist Neil Shubin states, “We’ve really only begun to sort of crack that spot [the small rocky outcropping 600 miles from the North Pole where Tiktaalik was found]†(AP 2006).

Ah yes, so using your logic, if someone found a skeleton under the sand at a beach, but it was missing several bones, such as a few ribs, two feet, and an arm. we cannot conclude that the bones are human or not?

Also noteworthy, is the use of diffident language by the secular reporters and scientists when discussing Tiktaalik. For example, NGN says this creature “may†be a missing link. While the NYT states that changes in this creature “anticipate†the emergence of land animals. One may anticipate leaving the house, but he is still in the house.

I dont know about you, but I don't take the news paper as 100% factual. If you want the final story, you need to read the papers written by the scientists that made the discovery/study.

Here's the great missing link!

Would you gamble your eternal destination on such "evidence"?

lol, I am not going to convert to a religion simply because I am scared that i may burn for eternity. Your not going to get into heaven if your following god out of fear alone.

to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals.

Please show us proof Evo.

You can’t because it’s all inferred.
If evolution is true the earth should be crammed full of series of graduated transitionals Evo, and yet they are not here. All you can offer is inferred “proof†and nice illustrations. Hey prove me to be wrong, just give us some real photos dude.

If your not going to accept anything I say as even remotely valuable then why offer proof? I was going to until you basically said "whatever you say is wrong". I have already proven you wrong on virtually every case you've made. Unfortunately you are incapable of accepting that you are able to be wrong on even one subject. I have never seen you accept any sort of evidence when it comes to science. not only that, but your asking the same questions over and over again. In which case I've already answered them and given you proof. Your inability to accept the evidence is the only thing that is going on. If you stated 2+2=5 and I showed you in detail that it in fact = 4 and you dont accept that, does not make you correct.

What you don't seem to understand is that those drawings aren't "guesses" They are based off of fossil findings.

OK, I’ll take your word for it. Now please direct me to the real fossil photos.

Here you go, the drawing at the bottom is a representation of each fossil (the fossils are going from top to bottom as the drawing shows). Take note that the pictures I have given are not the entire fossils that were found.

You try and make it appear that the illustrations are all that we have. I cannot begin to fathom how you came up with this conclusion? it's like saying humans down exist because it's just a picture...

This illustration is of real, physical things. Just as this is a drawing of a real, physic thing.

Do human skulls not exist simply because they are illustrations? No. This is presented so that everyone can understand what is going on and where what is located.

A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another. It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another. They don't even have to be fossils: many living lineages have transitional features.

So the parameters are changing again huh?
Pretty so you’ll be telling us that transitional forms don’t have to be transitionals at all, they just have to be composed of bones. Hey wait a minute! You have - Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium says long periods of stasis and sudden bursts of new life forms which happen so quick there is no fossil evidence!
This makes it extreemly easy to defenc evolution. Because you don't need any real proof according to Gould. That's science?!

No, it's been described as such for ever... as more evidence is discovered, your logic needs to change to make it appear to you that it's false. As for Gould, you are drastically quote mining him. Perhaps you should read his book entitled "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Here is what Gould is actually saying...

We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax†states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.â€

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as “hopeful monsters.†(I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium…) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the “punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory†and tells his hopeful readers that “it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.†Duane Gish writes, “According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.†Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie009.html

Try to stay honest Bronze, or at least less ignorant.

 

[jasoncran]

when i get a chance i see a contradiction in your posts evo in dialogue with me on the synthentic cell, but i wish to be sure such a thing exists.